Meyers v. Whittle
283 U.S. 795, 51 S. Ct. 489, 75 L. Ed. 1419, 1931 U.S. LEXIS 201
Opinion
The motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis is denied. The appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U. S. 180, 183, 185; Wabash R. Co. v. Flannigan, 192 U. S. 29; Erie R. Co. v. Solomon, 237 U.S. 427; Zucht v. King, 260 [796] U. S. 174; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182; C. A. King & Co. v. Horton, 276 U. S. 600; Bank of Indianola v. Miller, 276 U. S. 605; Roe v. Kansas, 278 U. S. 191.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Meyers v. Whittle, 283 U.S. 795, 51 S. Ct. 489, 75 L. Ed. 1419, 1931 U.S. LEXIS 201 (1931).
283 U.S. 795 (Meyers v. Whittle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
In the Matter of the Magnavox Company and Sanders Associates, Inc. Appeal of Universal Research Laboratories, Inc., Debtor
627 F.2d 803 (Seventh Circuit, 1980)
Lackner v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co.
111 F.2d 136 (Seventh Circuit, 1940)
Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Slattery
102 F.2d 58 (Seventh Circuit, 1939)
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Wallace
75 P.2d 942 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1937)